Subject: [Rserpool] Request for WG Last Call: Comparison of Protocols for Reliable Server Pooling

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:37:53 +0300

Hi all,

This document is quite stable.  It should be fairly complete, so
I'd like to request to the chairs that a working group last call 
be started on the document.  Does the WG have any objections?

The document can be found here:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rserpool-comp-03.txt

best regards,
John

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:50:55 +0300

Hi Julien,

> The section (2.1) about CORBA is ... well ... not serious. What can
> you conclude when you read sentences such as :
> 	Currently, the applicability of CORBA is unclear
> 
> CORBA has been around for 15 years, is implemented on every platform
> in the universe and used from nuclear plants to fly-by-wire systems
> and its applicability is unclear ?

Its applicability for the reliable server pooling is not clear.  The document is
not discussing its general usage or general applicability.  So far,
I have not seen any suggestions on how one can use CORBA for RserPool.
 
> Also the mention of «variants» of CORBA is misleading, there is no
> such thing as a variant. Just specs an ORB can elect to conform to
> and that cover different domains. All can be combined in the same
> product if needed.

How do the specifications work?  Is there a single document standard,
or several?  We are not discussing products in the document, but
standards.  In my opinion, CORBA is not a single specification,
but a suite of specifications.   For example, looking here:

http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/corba_spec_catalog.htm

shows a number of different specification, for a number of different
uses.  So, at least for the purposes of this document, we need to 
refer to specifications, not products.

> Although there is no strict IIOP (the CORBA TCP-based interoperability
> protocol) mapping to IPV6, there is no reason to think that is it not
> a straightforward extension.

If it is not standardized, than we cannot assume that it is available.

> CORBA has its own security infrastructure which may use IPsec when
> available.

Yes, but how do we place hooks into this security infrastructure to
re-use things like TLS, AAA infrastructure, DNS, etc?  These
are unresolved, so we cannot claim that they are available.
 
> Fault tolerant CORBA has too many common points with rserpool and its
> applicability domain to be mentionned just by name.
> Of course there are reasons to believe that it may be too high level
> for use in a strictly IP environnement, but there is no technical
> analysis whatsoever.
> 
> The CORBA trader is also very similar to some aspects of rserpool.
> 
> The CORBA Load Balancing Service is not even mentionned.

Load balancing is out of scope of Rserpool.

> The section 4 Comparison table misses some points, most likely due to
> the lack of consideration of many CORBA aspects.

I'm not a CORBA expert, so if you feel that some extra text is needed, then
please suggest it.  

John

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:50:55 +0300

Hi Julien,

 

 

John